It’s 6:50 a.m. on a drizzling New York morning and Chuck Todd is standing behind a wall on the cluttered Today Show set, safely out of shot as he waits to talk America’s early risers through the upcoming day in politics. He is sipping from a paper coffee cup as a makeup artist brushes down his charcoal suit—“I can’t pull off green,” he tells me as Al Roker passes by, snug in olive-colored tweed.
The moment is what Chuck Todd calls a “pause” in his workday—a rare sliver of respite in a 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. day that sees Todd shoot spots for Today and Morning Joe, write or edit ten posts for MSNBC’s First Read blog, pitch stories for the Nightly News—reporting them if they go ahead—and host his own daily cable show, The Daily Rundown. Always, he’s stopping at a computer or unlocking his BlackBerry to Tweet his thoughts, read a blog, check his messages (“I subscribe to every e-mail alert known to man”), or watch a new campaign commercial.
So, naturally, the pause doesn’t last long.
By 7:08 a.m., Todd is behind a desk on the Today set, riffing into camera on the day’s big beltway stories. Twenty-five minutes later, Todd is wedged between Mika Brzezinski and Jon Meacham on the Morning Joe set, a flashy, futuristic table-and-flatscreens setup at one end of the main NBC newsroom on the third floor of Rockefeller Center. When the segment wraps, Todd heads to an unused studio to find a computer from which to prepare for The Daily Rundown. He scrolls through a draft script, deleting chunks, adding others. He’s on in just over an hour. His earpiece dangles from a clip on his shirt collar, ready for action. It’s a little before 8 a.m.
Chuck Todd might be the busiest politico on television. Since Tim Russert brought him over in 2007 from National Journal’s The Hotline to fill NBC’s political director role, Todd has been adding to an already vast job description. In 2008, after Russert died suddenly of a heart attack and White House correspondent David Gregory moved to Meet The Press, Todd became co-White House correspondent with fellow NBC newcomer Savannah Guthrie. Then in late 2009, Todd and Guthrie started prepping to launch MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown, the 9 a.m. weekday hour they have co-hosted since January this year.
Rundown is, like many daytime MSNBC shows, a brightly colored and briskly paced mix of politics, news, and good humor. The idea for the Rundown, said Todd, was to take advantage of his and Guthrie’s positions in the White House press corps—and of NBC’s swath of correspondents across the country and the world—to show people what the news of the day would be. Usually filmed in D.C., Todd sees the Rundown as a counterpoint to his favorite political program from the 1990s and early 2000s, CNN’s Inside Politics, which wrapped up the day’s news after it had happened. “I think in the nineties we were all of the mindset in the news cycle where everybody wanted to know what it all means. I think now everybody is in the mindset of: ‘What’s going to happen today?’”
Tailing Todd through the hallways of NBC, where his star shines bright and passersby are quick to smile and nod, it’s easy to forget that outside of the network—and outside of the White House press room—Todd faces his share of critics. Charging mostly from the blogosphere, they see him as the ultimate embodiment of Washington insiderism, a horse-race reporter who puts far too much emphasis on polls and numbers and races and districts and candidates in lieu of issues. It’s that oft-lambasted style of reportage, conducted through off-the-record chats with White House insiders and discussions with others who live and breathe in the bubble. And for some, the thirty-eight-year-old Todd is its biggest proponent.
Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, who in 2009 debated Todd over his contention that George W. Bush should not be investigated by the Justice Department for allegedly sanctioning torture, told me: “If there were a dictionary that had a term in it called ‘conventional Beltway political reporting,’ you could easily have a picture of Chuck Todd next to it. He’s as conventional as it gets.”
Such accusations don’t rankle Todd, who sees his knowledge of the capitol, and his position within it, as important to his mission. He’s in the Beltway to help those who are not. “I want to do two things,” says Todd. “Help people understand why something happened in the political world and demystify the political world. I like the idea of being a person who can help make sense of it all.”
Chuck Todd’s quick success in television comes down to more than sheer hard work. He may lack the twinkle of a Brian Williams, the bluster of a Keith Olbermann, and the lantern-jawed good looks of a standard-issue TV anchor. But Todd’s a refreshingly calm and watchable presence armed with an ability, like Russert before him, to speak clearly and plainly about a very unplain subject: politics.
Todd’s political smarts were on full display the day I followed him. At about 8:00 a.m., I sat with Todd in NBC’s Studio 3B, a dark collection of desks, computers, and a small, unbuilt set from which he will host the network’s election coverage on November 2. He was at a computer editing the Rundown script when my minder for the day, a watchful member of NBC News’s press office, mentioned that she hails from Louisville. Todd couldn’t help turning around to give a brief political rundown of Derby City. Louisville can be a bit of an anomaly in Kentucky because it is so urban, said Todd, clearly enjoying a pause to tout his political chops. “Mitch McConnell’s a Louisville guy, and even he doesn’t connect with Republicans in the rest of Kentucky.”



My questions would be: when does Chuck Todd ever reflect on his work? When does he ever read a book about politics, or history, getting some context for his often-made assertions about how unprecedented or historic current events are? Often these current events are less dramatic when placed within American political history. It seems that so much of what Todd does is remembered no longer than the less commercial break. In a way, I'm glad he doesn't do what Greenwald would wish because the result would be so shallow and disappointing in its substance.
#1 Posted by jon komatsu, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 10:49 AM
“But ultimately, the blame on ‘process’ coverage lies with the elected officials. It’s amazing to me how little substance most elected officials will engage in. I think the unsatisfied partisan media critics would be wise to spend more time engaging policymakers than those charged with covering them.”
No, Chuck, that's your job as one of the "prominent" journalists. YOU need to get the politicians to talk. YOU need to investigate their claims, their actions, their votes. YOU need to hold their feet to the fire. Politicians will NEVER willingly give you the goods.
#2 Posted by D Lowery, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 10:55 AM
Todd, as always, misses the point on Colbert's testimony. Rather than asking if it was disrespectful to Congress (and I'll bet in Todd's mind, to him and his empty-headed colleagues in the the DC press) he should ask why Colbert was asked to do his schtick -- because it was the only way to get the press to cover the hearings and ultimately, an issue which normally wouldn't get two seconds of "mainstream" media attention.
We don't care if you "miss," Chuck, we can read poll results in any number of places if that's what we're interested in. We'd prefer it if you'd use your access to ask some questions that might provide actual information rather than "who's gonna win?" or "did that electoral strategy work?"
Oh, and stop saying "you know" so much during your stand-ups. It's really annoying.
#3 Posted by Yokel, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 11:27 AM
I'm still somewhat stunned that David Bradley described Todd as "impossibly interesting, and impossibly creative." As Greenwald said, Todd is pretty much just a one-man Beltway cliche/conventional wisdom factory.
As if to prove Greenwald's point, Todd's own self-defense in this article demonstrates precisely that: the tired, constant reference to "the left and the right" and to "partisans," as if critics such as Greenwald are motivated by partisanship. Just further illustrates Todd's inability to see issues as more than scoreboards between parties and partisan "activists," the exact same process-fixation of which he's accused.
I also find it difficult to reconcile Todd's placing Senators "on a pedestal" (again proving one of Greenwald's accusations) with his statement that the cause of process-fixation is not media stars such as himself, but elected officials. Unless, of course, he doesn't see process-fixation as such a bad thing after all.
All in all, a muddled and entirely unconvincing defense from this conveyor belt of conventional wisdom and horserace superficiality, a person whose mercurial rise is yet another pound of proof of the staggering failure of our corporate media.
#4 Posted by Chris M., CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 12:15 PM
Leaving the bickering to Greenwald and Todd and their partisans, I'll only note that Joel Meares . . . forgot . . . to mention Todd's work on the Tom Harkin presidential campaign of 1992. You all remember Tom Harkin's run for the White House, I'm sure, unless you were blinking sometime in early 1992. Not a lot of time, didn't last long - but it helps provide some Chuck Todd context.
#5 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 12:22 PM
Todd is completely unconcerned with policy and the implications of policy decisions. Isn't the entire purpose of government to govern? Rather than explain how our public officials govern, Todd would rather prognosticate on implications for an election 2 years away, as though his predictions carry any more merit than anyone else's, all while ignoring that in making assertions as to the implications of a certain story he is not actually predicting public reaction but rather setting the narrative. Todd describes his job as one who informs the public, and he presumably sees himself as simply an outside observer; but, in reality, he plays as big a role in setting narratives as any politician. He influences much more than he observes.
Politics is not a sporting event. It affects real people's lives and has implications of paramount importance. Mr. Todd should probably get a job covering sports, as that's all he appears to see politics as.
#6 Posted by Egan, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 01:04 PM
Chuck Todd claims he read "Profiles in Courage," but missed the boat.
There's nothing courageous about putting Senators on pedastals and kissing the arses of powerful elites.
For a purportedly professional journalist, that's a profile in cowardice.
#7 Posted by Mickey Dugan, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 01:33 PM
few thoughts;
i just can't imagine Chuck Todd being in charge or heavily involved in the The Atlantic Wire
I'm not sure using Savannah Guthrie as a barometer was the best way to illustrate his vast political knowledge...i've watched their show bunch of times and no matter what the subject matter, even in non-political areas, he seems to know much more than her.
i found Todd a curio and inoffensive until his appearance on Real Time a year or so ago when Jeremy Scahill put the screws to him and asked: Why weren't you guys digging up half this stuff on Blackwater with all your resources? The answer was forgettable and not sufficient
#8 Posted by Jim, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 01:49 PM
I am a regular reader and contributer to Chuck Todd's First Read blog.
Although I agree with much of the criticism leveled, I will also say that First Read is one of the few places where the media's role is discussed and there is an awareness that much of what is covered are "shiny objects" or "media catnip" as Chuck likes to say.
I found this article interesting because it gave a little background about Chuck the man, and despite everything, Chuck is not just a "talking head". He is a person and I give him credit for being willing to defend the stuff he says and not just duck and hide.
We might not agree with Chuck much, but at least now we have a fuller picture of his "perspective".
I respect Chuck's political knowledge and polling insights. I just don't think that those things are the most important issues facing us right now.
But, Chuck is the POLITICAL director, so perhaps the problem is that the "Tim Russert" bit is sorely lacking, and maybe it is unfair to expect that from Chuck.
He is doing what he is getting paid to do . . . David Gregory on the other hand . . . but that's a topic for another time.
#9 Posted by Media critic, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 02:27 PM
I don't want to jump in on the Chuck-bashing. Although your piece was a bit hagiographic, it did contain some nuggets of interest.
I'm okay with Chuck Todd as a political reporter of the broadcast type. Print reporters are the standard by which, generally, journalists are held, but TV reporters are really a different breed, and they aren't really journalists in the conventional sense. Their bosses aren't editors and publishers but producers who often, or usually, have no journalism background. So they don't hew to the conventional standards of journalism.
So you get this:
"We also have constraints that I wish we didn’t have, including the issue of being a business so we can’t delve as deep into some policy debates as many of us would like, because someone has decided it’s not good for ratings."
Chuck's first priority is not good journalism but good ratings. And his bosses like it that way. That makes for an entirely different animal than a print reporter. Different focus. Different priorities. Yes, print reporters often fashion headlines in order to get more clicks, but the good print journalists are first and foremost about the reporting of news. Chuck's bosses are about the ratings: infotainment. That's the culture in which Chuck operates. Although he mouths the standards of journalism, he probably isn't even aware of the difference.
I think Chuck Todd is an honest and hardworking broker of the "news," which to him is the horserace. He is immersed in the beltway culture and not the world at large. And the beltway views politics as game; it's like one big revolving sports bar, the participants obsessed with teams and strategy and point-making, and not reality.
He isn't the only beltway journo who believes this:
"It’s amazing to me how little substance most elected officials will engage in. I think the unsatisfied partisan media critics would be wise to spend more time engaging policymakers than those charged with covering them."
I would say to Chuck -- That's supposed to be your job! You are supposed to engage policymakers, for your audience, those of us who aren't in the position to engage them! That's what "charged with covering them means! You are supposed to engage policymakers in substance! If not, what the hell are you doing there?
#10 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 02:31 PM
chuck todd is a light-weight who is afraid to engage conservatives. his interviewing is softball style and his analysis is suspect because he doesn't challenge obviously flawed views that do not serve the common interests of the country. paired with savannah guthrie they come off like two high school reporters. i don't like george stephanoupolas, but todd is even worse.
#11 Posted by conrad, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 04:16 PM
I thought the job title was "reporter," not "repeater."
#12 Posted by Jon88, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 04:43 PM
Chuck "Prosecuting people for torture is political cat nip" Todd. That's all I'm ever gonna remember about this joke of a journalist.
#13 Posted by Rick, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 05:27 PM
@jon komatsu & others make excellent points.
comes down to this:
Todd's a great stenographer. Greenwald's a great journalist.
#14 Posted by JayUSA, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 06:30 PM
Politics is sports without the balls.
#15 Posted by Paul S., CJR on Sat 30 Oct 2010 at 08:41 AM
In Todd We Trust!
Tyndall Report gives Chuck top marks for Campaign 2010 coverage on the network nightly newscasts.
#16 Posted by Andrew Tyndall, CJR on Sat 30 Oct 2010 at 12:42 PM
When Todd appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher, Jeremy Scahill called him out for not investigating the obviously corrupt Blackwater fiasco. Todd's weak comeback was "It wouldn't have done any good," which explains, I suppose, the depth of Todd's journalistic integrity. Rather than simply and accurately reporting the facts, Todd determines which information will "do any good," and saves us the trouble of making up our own minds.
Todd's investigative skills are thinner than his comb-over (or comb-forward, if you will).
#17 Posted by Tom Elvis Brown, CJR on Sat 30 Oct 2010 at 04:39 PM
Todd doesn't get 'out' much ~ it's like getting a weather report from a slot poker addict in Las Vegas and 12 PM "Yeah, it's warm and dark out here"
#18 Posted by mommadona, CJR on Sun 31 Oct 2010 at 06:19 PM
Todd says that "It’s amazing to me how little substance most elected officials will engage in."
So how about instead of transcribing, er, reporting their fluff, real journalists simply reported that the politician refused to say anything substantive. How about calling the politicians on that? How about fact-checking them.
And if by "business" Todd means keeping in the good graces of politicians in order to have access to them, then that's a business with no value to the public. That "business" should end.
#19 Posted by John Tomlinson, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 02:53 PM
He needs a break. Since he's been mr. everything at msnbc, his work has become more conventional and less relevant and significant. It's like he tries to find a catchy little twist to a story, and that's good enough... then he moves on. During the election, he seemed to be one of the few that really had an accurate perspective as far as the national mood and what was driving issues. You could tell he put alot of thought into it. Now he's totally caught up in the 24-hour beltway politics game and his analysis has suffered. He said it himself, its not about "what does this mean"... its about "what's going to happen today". This is where he's wrong... its the long term view that matters in government, nothing happens overnight... but as long as our media acts like that, it prevents us from ever making sound long term decisions.
#20 Posted by Blake, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 06:00 PM
And here I thought it was just me. The comments here about Todd and his brain-dead brand of political reporting restore my faith that journalistic standards aren't lost so much as covered by a layer of idiocy. Todd is to political reporting what Howard Kurtz is to media criticism -- a lazy, incurious conformist with an inexcusably narrow perspective.
#21 Posted by dandelion1028, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 06:55 PM
Visit Now Free Blogger XML Templates Download
#22 Posted by Visit Now Free Blogger XML Templates Download, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 06:57 AM